Tramadol denials in California external review

In the California DMHC record, independent physician reviewers decided 18 published external-review cases involving Tramadoland overturned the plan’s denial in 33.3%. That is a historical result among cases that reached this program, not a forecast for an individual appeal.

California DMHC decisions
18
2008–2024
Overturned
33.3%
6 denials reversed
Typical time to a decision
9 days
Most land between 3 and 21 days
Handled as urgent
55.6%
Expedited when a delay would cause harm

What the reviewers wrote

Excerpts from the independent reviewers’ published findings — the actual reasoning, quoted, not summarised.

Where the denial was overturned

Findings: The physician reviewer found that Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient requested authorization and coverage for the medication regimen of tramadol 50 mg tablets (90 tablets every 30 days).The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for opioid therapy state that, “For patients already receiving opioid therapy, clinicians should carefully weigh benefits and risks and exercise care when changing opioid dosage. If benefits outweigh risks of continued opioid therapy, clinicians should work closely with patients to optimize nonopioid therapies while continuing opioid therapy”.
Medical Necessity · 2024 · IMR MN24-41103
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for oxycodone with acetaminophen tablets 5-325 mg and/or tramadol 50 mg. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines state that, “Nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy are preferred for chronic pain.” Further, the CDC noted that, “If opioids are used, they should be combined with nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy, as appropriate.” The Federation of State Medical Boards indicated that, “opioid therapy for chronic pain that is not cancer-related, or part of palliative care or end-of-life care, only when non-opioid and non-pharmacological options have not been effective and maintain opioid dosage as low as possible and continue only if clear and objective outcomes are being met.” The American Society of Interventional Pain Phys…
Medical Necessity · 2022 · IMR MN22-37199

Where the denial was upheld

Worth reading too — these show what an appeal has to overcome.
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: The patient has requested authorization and coverage for tramadol. Findings: The physician reviewer found that On determining when to initiate or continue opioids for chronic pain, Dowell and colleagues report, “Nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy are preferred for chronic pain. Clinicians should consider opioid therapy only if expected benefits for both pain and function are anticipated to outweigh risks to the patient. If opioids are used, they should be combined with nonpharmacologic therapy and nonopioid pharmacologic therapy, as appropriate.” The authors further note, “Clinicians should evaluate benefits and harms with patients within one to four weeks of starting opioid therapy for chronic pain or of dose escalation.
Medical Necessity · 2022 · IMR MN22-37798
Nature of Statutory Criteria/Case Summary: An enrollee has requested authorization and coverage for an increase in tramadol dose. The Health Plan has denied this request indicating that the requested medication regimen is not medically necessary for treatment of the enrollee’s medical condition. Nationally recognized evidence based medical guidelines recommend tramadol as an option for pain treatment. Tramadol is indicated for treatment of moderate to severe pain. There is limited information to recommend this drug for neuropathic pain. The immediate release formulation is recommended at a dose of 50 to 100 mg by mouth every four to six hours (not to exceed 400 mg per day). Opioids appear to be efficacious, but should be limited for short-term pain relief in patients with acute low back pain.
Medical Necessity · 2018 · IMR MN18-29582

Figures and quotations on this page come from 42,749 published decisions in the California DMHC Independent Medical Review dataset. These are California external-review outcomes. Other state and federal programs have different eligibility rules, processes, and current availability; the rates here do not transfer to those programs or predict an individual result. Excerpts are quoted verbatim from the public record and describe this treatment generally, not any individual case.

How to use this in your appeal

These outcomes describe eligible cases completed through California DMHC’s Independent Medical Review program. They do not estimate the chance that an internal appeal, an external review in another jurisdiction, or your individual case will succeed. Use the record to identify evidence patterns involving Tramadol, then check the rights and deadlines that apply to your plan.

SOURCE: CALIFORNIA DMHC INDEPENDENT MEDICAL REVIEW OUTCOMES (CHHS OPEN DATA) · AGGREGATES + DEIDENTIFIED DECISION EXCERPTS/REFERENCE IDS · METHODOLOGY

Not legal or medical advice. Coverage Rights is a self-help tool that helps you prepare your own appeal. For advice about your specific situation, talk to a licensed attorney or your doctor.

Denied Tramadol? Use the California record to prepare.

Explain my denial — freeStart my appeal · $39